The relativity of what 'truth' means, is not at all beyond our grasp however.
It would also seem flawed to assume 'reality' itself is some form of absolute also, no?Carl Emerson said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The relativity of what 'truth' means, is not at all beyond our grasp however.... Such rules of argument postulate that objective truth is beyond our grasp and all thinking is merely relative.
It would also seem flawed to assume 'reality' itself is some form of absolute also, no?Carl Emerson said:Therefore I like to point out that at times that the facts of history do not always support our analysis of 'reality' because we have a flawed philosophical starting point.
Umm .. us humans?I object to the usage of the term 'metaphysical'. Given that we cannot establish the definition of a 'natural' world.
Who has been generating these ideas, this terminology.
Any Philosophy of Science should admit scientific thinking (at the very minimum)?... Following these 'rules' the Philosophy of Science requires all participants to hold an atheistic position.
Atheism is a lack of a belief, not a religious belief.Any Philosophy of Science should admit scientific thinking (at the very minimum)?
I personally don't see where one's religious beliefs (including Atheism) have anything to do with that?
There is no consensus among philosophers about many of the central problems concerned with the philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about unobservable things and whether scientific reasoning can be justified at all.Exactly, we have defined natural as examinable...
We have further been told to exclude such matters from debate.
Following these 'rules' the Philosophy of Science requires all participants to hold an atheistic position.
No, it just means that it has not yet been falsified.If there is, at this time, no credible alternative to speciation. Does that then mean that the concept of the evolution of species is therefore correct?
As used in science, the term "random" merely means "unpredictable." The definition I was taught was "Predictable by no known algorithm." --Sokolnikov & Redheffer (1958) The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering.Yes it does.
It is impossible to propose that any mutation can be a random mutation. The simple reason is that it is impossible to know if random events are even possible.
That kind of vocabulary (random) is not justified.
How so? Many devoutly theistic scientists hold to these rules as well.Exactly, we have defined natural as examinable...
We have further been told to exclude such matters from debate.
Following these 'rules' the Philosophy of Science requires all participants to hold an atheistic position.
So it has a temporal justification.No, it just means that it has not yet been falsified.
Any Philosophy of Science should admit scientific thinking (at the very minimum)?
I personally don't see where one's religious beliefs (including Atheism) have anything to do with that?
There is no consensus among philosophers about many of the central problems concerned with the philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about unobservable things and whether scientific reasoning can be justified at all.
(wikipedia)
Suprisingly, that is not true. We still have creationists in this forum who deny the formation of new species.
because there are forces at play that defy logic. For this reason evolution is not real because outcomes depend on more than what is physically seen.
How then do you account for the victories of WW2 with Germany being superior in almost every measurable way - and the 6 day war with Israel being ridiculously outnumbered and under equipped.
Following these 'rules' the Philosophy of Science requires all participants to hold an atheistic position.
That doesn't follow.
You can accept that "outcomes depend on more than what is physically seen" and still believe in theistic evolution.
Sorry Carl .. I can't see the consistency there.... Further as I have pointed out the Philosophy of science excludes absolutes from the rules of argument so participants are required to take an atheistic position.
Whilst I might agree that science rejects metaphysics, it isn't because of some going-in belief. It is rejected because its untestable and thus categorised as being a belief.Carl Emerson said:Secondly because those within the discipline must confine their activities to matters non- metaphysical.
Nazi Germany had the enormous disadvantage of being led by a madman.
And the outcome of the "6 day war" is not surprising to military historians.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?